DxOMark on wide apertures.

Rriley · Nov 28, 2010

bobn2 said:
Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

So the context was JW referring to Oly's telecentric claims as marketing fluff, your suggestion being that he wasn't in possession of all the facts and you put him right, and he changed his opinion.

Click to expand...

well thats a lie
it began with

(a)"the whole story with Joe W was that he wasnt aware that the exit pupil to some Nikon lenses"

Click to expand...

That's a very strange thing to 'begin' with. Suddenly, without context, you decided to present to us the story of you, JW and the EXIF. Except that you did it in response to Steen's point about the fluff comment. Do you make a point of answering questions with answers that bear no connection to the question? (note to self: don't be silly, he does it all the time )

if you had the smarts to pick it up, it means that nikon are using telecentric principles in at least some of their lenses, so it certainly means more than how you characterise it

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

what i said is explicit, it makes NO CLAIM that he was 'put right' thats all in your biased twisted little mind

Click to expand...

You can only interpret it the way you now want us to if you assume it had no connection to the point Steen raised.

spin spin spin

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Clearly you did, since you were replying to a question as to why JW used the 'fluff' term.

Click to expand...

and the same lie repeated
refer to point (a)

Click to expand...

Which wasn't a very good point, now, was it? You were replying to a question as to why JW used the 'fluff' term. Now you're asking us to believe that your answer had no connection to the question and the conversation started with your answer.

lies and spin spin spin, refer to point (a)

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Anyhoo, your imparing of the knowledge clearly didn't affect his opinion because you let him have it on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=27307192 ) and he was taking about telecentricity, marketing fluff, whacked patents and so on on Saturday, April 18, 2009 ( http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=31632124 ).

Click to expand...

a nonsensical diversion from your lie to escalate issues you know sh!t about

Click to expand...

It just seems strange that when you answer a question about JW's 'fluff' statement with an account of an exchange (which we apparently had no connection to the 'fluff' statement') which occurred before the 'fluff' statement. Are you now saying that it was your interaction with him that caused him to describe Olympus' telecentric claims as marketing fluff? That, at least, is believable.

bobn2 said:

im not here to change his mind

Click to expand...

Clearly. I don't think you're here to change anyone's mind.

clearly YOU ARE
whos paying ?

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

I'm think it certainly doesn't. You consistently show that you can't sustain a line of reasoning, just like your story about JW where you apparently changed his opinion before he expressed it. It's that kind of cause and effect thing you just don't seem to be able to grasp.

Click to expand...

and lie again, refer to point (a)

Click to expand...

Well really, point (a) just goes to prove my point again . The idea that you answer a question with an answer which bears no connection to the question rather backs up the idea that you haven't quite grasped this concept of 'reasoning', do you not think?

lies and spin spin spin

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

no matter how many times you lie, it doesnt change what i said

Click to expand...

I've lied zero times, and what you said is there for everyone to see, is it not? All you can do now is argue it didn't mean what it clearly did mean.

lies and spin spin spin, refer to point (a)

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

is this a willing intentional lie or your reading comprehension just took the day off to make room for the schoolgirl attitude

Click to expand...

Neither, it's the truth. As the evidence and arguments I raise, which you can never answer, show.

Click to expand...

you have lied

Click to expand...

I haven't, you know. One of the problems you have, in not being able to comprehend lines of discussion or reasoning, is that you can't pick out the chain of causality that distinguishes lies from the truth. Your only definition of a 'lie' is 'something that shows 'Riley' up badly'. That includes almost every true statement on cameras or the exchanges that go on here.

lies and spin spin spin, refer to point (a)

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

and you are pulling it to distortion in an attempt to make your lie look true

Click to expand...

My truth looks true because its true. Of course, what you're trying to do is exactly spin things so you don't look as stupid as what you said makes you seem, when all the contradictions are pointed out. It's not going well for you, in fact you're digging a bigger hole with every post.

bobn2 said:

you said

"What a load of self serving nonsense. Joe's knowledge of optics is far better than that, "

which was way way off the beam anyway

Click to expand...

spot on it seems, now we know the timelines of the exchange

lies and spin spin spin, refer to point (a)

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

now you twist and turn in the usual fashion
and unfortunately this time have resorted to lies lies lies

spin spin spin bob

like nobody knew

Click to expand...

I tell the truth and you're left chanting and wailing in the corner of the playground again. Well your little friend is back,

yeah whos that ?

bobn2 said:
so at least you've one mate here. You can go and tell him what a rotter I am, 'cause no-one else wants to hear.

you lied
what does that make your worth

bobn2 said:
--
Bob

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

bobn2 · Nov 28, 2010

BamaPanda said:
...on that link, anyway.

I did go where three lenses could be compared, but there was only two Oly lenses there ..the 35 & 14-42 ... neither very fast.

Interesting that the article makes comment about fast lenses being subject to problems, but not really looking at Oly's fast offerings at all.

Because Olympus has no fast offerings. If you look at the first example, it's looking at f/1.4 and is Nikon and Canon. Unless they were going to put a Sigma on the Olympus, there's nothing to do. Similarly, the next chart is f/1.2, so is only Canon. If you look at the third graph, which shows the gain to compensate, you'll find that for most manufacturers it's pretty much all done by f/2, the fastest Olympus has.

BamaPanda said:
Any reason DxO would not cover faster Oly lenses

because there are none designed for Four Thirds.

BamaPanda said:
...especially on how well they would work with the 4/3 sensor? Maybe it is there and I just could not find it.

This would seem to really validate Oly's approach to the whole of digital design.

Really? When there's an f-number effect that restricts light gathering at small f-numbers, then a system which requires smaller f-numbers to match the light gathering of other systems would hardly seem to be 'validated'.
--
Bob

Great Bustard · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

It dissapoints me to no end that my pics don't make the grade with you.

Click to expand...

you have trouble with a tiny bit of critique...

Not really. As you've noted, it's more a "personal" thing. You see, I'm quite the fan of "Brutal Critiques":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37025618

That said, my posting pics in this thread is not for critique, but to put the issues of vignetting and corner sharpness into context with actual photos (none of the posted pics have been corrected or cropped), as well as the "utility" of shallow DOF UWA.

Rriley said:
...i see that now
i know your kids are important to you joe, as they should be,
it just doesnt interest me

Except, of course, that I take tons of other pics, as I've posted from time to time:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36596477

But, yes, of course my kids are important to me. It does not even need to be said.

Rriley · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
BamaPanda said:

...on that link, anyway.

I did go where three lenses could be compared, but there was only two Oly lenses there ..the 35 & 14-42 ... neither very fast.

Interesting that the article makes comment about fast lenses being subject to problems, but not really looking at Oly's fast offerings at all.

Click to expand...

well they do discuss things around F2 F4
and we have lenses in that zone

yeah here it is right here

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

"Our measurements all point in the same direction: as you go further than f 4 – to f 2 and wider, the accrued quantity of light falls marginally onto the sensor. A stronger and stronger part of this additional light is blocked or lost. I am therefore inclined to question the real benefit of faster lenses.”"

Rriley said:
i think their beef was that opposition were gaming their ISO, and their claim is increasing noise without the photographers knowledge

Rriley said:

Any reason DxO would not cover faster Oly lenses ...especially on how well they would work with the 4/3 sensor? Maybe it is there and I just could not find it.

This would seem to really validate Oly's approach to the whole of digital design.

Click to expand...

you could pretty easily get that impression by ommision

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

"Conclusion

In view of the above, we would greatly appreciate comments from the camera manufacturers, particularly the major companies such as Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica, Panasonic, Pentax, etc.

Please give us your feedback so we can share it with our readers.

Thank you."

no mention of Olympus

Rriley said:
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

bobn2 · Nov 28, 2010

Funny how you go completely to pieces when someone calls you, isn't it? The sad beaten bully in the school yard, chanting insults because he's nothing left.
Since there's nothing worth responding to lets try something more constructive.
Here's my account of how and why the small f-number light loss occurs:

And here's a similar account of how the situation is off-axis and how a distant exit pupil (called by Olympus 'telecentric design') lessens corner shading:

As you can see from the final formulas the off axis case reduces to the same as the on-axis case when the displacement id removed (as one would expect), and the exit pupil distance does not appear in the on-axis case. So given that, how can you maintain that the effect being discussed has anything to do with telecentricity?
--
Bob

Sergey_Green · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
..

you have trouble with a tiny bit of critique, i see that now
i know your kids are important to you joe, as they should be,
it just doesnt interest me

Funny, but I feel the same about the interiors. If macro is for drunks, shallow DoF with wides is for fools, yada, yada, no cats but you have an opinion on how badly others do it, what interests you then? Got some good landscapes, night shots, what else, some action? Once you are done with interiors, what keeps you motivated?

--
- sergey

BamaPanda · Nov 28, 2010

bobn2 said:
bobn2 said:

Any reason DxO would not cover faster Oly lenses

Click to expand...

because there are none designed for Four Thirds.

bobn2 said:
Bob

I guess I was thinking that F2 was pretty quick. Of course that is a zoom, but isn't a constant F2 pretty good on a higher grade lens?

I really need to go back and look really close at the DxO marks, especially in light of all this ...especially the fast primes from Canon (like do they actually cover the sensor properly).

A lot of this tech is over my head, so a cursory understanding is what I might achieve at best.

Rriley · Nov 28, 2010

bobn2 said:
Funny how you go completely to pieces when someone calls you, isn't it? The sad beaten bully in the school yard, chanting insults because he's nothing left.

beaten bully? sounds a bit physical
you wouldnt be threatening me would you,
b/se that could be kinda funny, well for 15 seconds

bobn2 said:
Since there's nothing worth responding to lets try something more constructive.
Here's my account of how and why the small f-number light loss occurs:

yeah but, iis it the truth bob
unfortunately thats a question that has to be asked

bobn2 said:
And here's a similar account of how the situation is off-axis and how a distant exit pupil (called by Olympus 'telecentric design') lessens corner shading:

As you can see from the final formulas the off axis case reduces to the same as the on-axis case when the displacement id removed (as one would expect), and the exit pupil distance does not appear in the on-axis case. So given that, how can you maintain that the effect being discussed has anything to do with telecentricity?

wouldnt it be better if you made an explicit statement of how and why telecentric lenses in no way whatsoever are a counter to this problem ?

better that than this plausible denial, cop-out questioning you engage in

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

illy · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

"Conclusion

In view of the above, we would greatly appreciate comments from the camera manufacturers, particularly the major companies such as Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica, Panasonic, Pentax, etc.

Please give us your feedback so we can share it with our readers.

Thank you."

no mention of Olympus

Rriley said:

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

no mention of Olympus because the open letter is intended for the major companies

--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo

?

Great Bustard · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
bobn2 said:

Funny how you go completely to pieces when someone calls you, isn't it? The sad beaten bully in the school yard, chanting insults because he's nothing left.

Click to expand...

beaten bully? sounds a bit physical
you wouldnt be threatening me would you,
b/se that could be kinda funny, well for 15 seconds

Well, yes, I guess someone given to making threats would see it that way, but they way I read it, "beaten" meant "defeated".

Rriley said:
wouldnt it be better if you made an explicit statement of how and why telecentric lenses in no way whatsoever are a counter to this problem ?

better that than this plausible denial, cop-out questioning you engage in

How about what I said much further up?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37037298

In other words, telecentricity did the trick, but another trick (offset microlenses) did it better.

And for those that bother to click on links, "better" is defined.

Rriley · Nov 28, 2010

Sergey_Green said:
Rriley said:

..

you have trouble with a tiny bit of critique, i see that now
i know your kids are important to you joe, as they should be,
it just doesnt interest me

Click to expand...

Funny, but I feel the same about the interiors. If macro is for drunks, shallow DoF with wides is for fools, yada, yada, no cats but you have an opinion on how badly others do it,

quite rare for me to say anything really
im a bit shocked at how joe responded, i mean, who cares

for others, who have a history of shooting the place up for one reason or another, only to have their own stuff revealed in glorious colour, well thats open season. They already put their feet over the line, and theyve pretty well all done so with me

as have you
got my drift?

Sergey_Green said:
what interests you then? Got some good landscapes, night shots, what else, some action? Once you are done with interiors, what keeps you motivated?

well what i do mostly is, i mind my own business

Sergey_Green said:
--
- sergey

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Rriley · Nov 28, 2010

illy said:
Rriley said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

"Conclusion

In view of the above, we would greatly appreciate comments from the camera manufacturers, particularly the major companies such as Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica, Panasonic, Pentax, etc.

Please give us your feedback so we can share it with our readers.

Thank you."

no mention of Olympus

Member said:

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Click to expand...

no mention of Olympus because the open letter is intended for the major companies

oh companies like, Pentax

Member said:
--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo ?

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

bobn2 · Nov 28, 2010

BamaPanda said:
bobn2 said:

BamaPanda said:

Any reason DxO would not cover faster Oly lenses

Click to expand...

because there are none designed for Four Thirds.

Click to expand...

BamaPanda said:

Bob

Click to expand...

I guess I was thinking that F2 was pretty quick. Of course that is a zoom, but isn't a constant F2 pretty good on a higher grade lens?

With most sensors (and it does depend on the design of the sensor) the effect is only starting at f/2. Doesn't matter whether it's a zoom or not.

BamaPanda said:
I really need to go back and look really close at the DxO marks, especially in light of all this ...especially the fast primes from Canon (like do they actually cover the sensor properly).

Well, there is corner shading (which isn't what this is talking about) with most lenses faster than f/2. Whether you think it's an issue or not is another matter. Most people using those lenses are happy to have the speed in the centre, where the subject generally is.

BamaPanda said:
A lot of this tech is over my head, so a cursory understanding is what I might achieve at best.

I've posted quite a few diagrams across the thread, to try to help people understand what's going on, even the not too technical. You just need a bit of school geometry. Perhaps I'll use your post to put them all in one place.
First one,

left: photoreceptor in pixel (green bit) just catching all the light from the lens' exit pupil
mid: faster lens has wider exit pupil, some light misses photoreceptor

right: telecentric lens has exit pupil further away but larger to maintain same f-number - situation exactly as left - telecentricity has no bearing on this effect.

Second one:
Its got captions to explain what's going on

As has the third one

and then the last two have all the maths, so that you can work out that the others reflect the true situation, if you want:

--
Bob

Rriley · Nov 28, 2010

Great Bustard said:
Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

Funny how you go completely to pieces when someone calls you, isn't it? The sad beaten bully in the school yard, chanting insults because he's nothing left.

Click to expand...

beaten bully? sounds a bit physical
you wouldnt be threatening me would you,
b/se that could be kinda funny, well for 15 seconds

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I guess someone given to making threats would see it that way, but they way I read it, "beaten" meant "defeated".

Great Bustard said:

wouldnt it be better if you made an explicit statement of how and why telecentric lenses in no way whatsoever are a counter to this problem ?

better that than this plausible denial, cop-out questioning you engage in

Click to expand...

How about what I said much further up?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37037298

In other words, telecentricity did the trick, but another trick (offset microlenses) did it better.

And for those that bother to click on links, "better" is defined.

ive been around long enough to remember when you asked this forum what telecentric was b/se you didnt know,

do we really need to go here ?

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

bobn2 · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
bobn2 said:

Funny how you go completely to pieces when someone calls you, isn't it? The sad beaten bully in the school yard, chanting insults because he's nothing left.

Click to expand...

beaten bully? sounds a bit physical
you wouldnt be threatening me would you,
b/se that could be kinda funny, well for 15 seconds

Might I end up in hospital such that it would take a gallon of superglue to put me together again?

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

Since there's nothing worth responding to lets try something more constructive.
Here's my account of how and why the small f-number light loss occurs:

Click to expand...

yeah but, iis it the truth bob

Yes, it is

Rriley said:
unfortunately thats a question that has to be asked

It's a question which always has to be asked. You should be sceptical of anything put in front of you, whoever puts it. In this case, since I present all the reasoning, it's fairly easy to find out whether its the truth, you simply work through it yourself, ensure that all the assumptions and optics I've used are correct and that my maths is correct, and if you can't pick any holes in it, then its the 'truth' in that it describes what actually happens.

Rriley said:
Rriley said:

And here's a similar account of how the situation is off-axis and how a distant exit pupil (called by Olympus 'telecentric design') lessens corner shading:

As you can see from the final formulas the off axis case reduces to the same as the on-axis case when the displacement id removed (as one would expect), and the exit pupil distance does not appear in the on-axis case. So given that, how can you maintain that the effect being discussed has anything to do with telecentricity?

Click to expand...

wouldnt it be better if you made an explicit statement of how and why telecentric lenses in no way whatsoever are a counter to this problem ?

That is what this is.

Rriley said:
better that than this plausible denial, cop-out questioning you engage in

The problem is that you cannot recognise 'an explicit statement of how and why telecentric lenses in no way whatsoever are a counter to this problem' when its put in front of you. I suspect you're simply dodging because you don't know the optics and can't do the maths.
--
Bob

illy · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
illy said:

Rriley said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

"Conclusion

In view of the above, we would greatly appreciate comments from the camera manufacturers, particularly the major companies such as Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica, Panasonic, Pentax, etc.

Please give us your feedback so we can share it with our readers.

Thank you."

no mention of Olympus

Rriley said:

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Click to expand...

no mention of Olympus because the open letter is intended for the major companies

Click to expand...

oh companies like, Pentax

Rriley said:

--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo ?

Click to expand...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

we are Pentax....resistance is futile!
--
Mandolin, haha, nope sorry! That, my friend, is a Banjo

?

bobn2 · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
Great Bustard said:

Rriley said:

bobn2 said:

Funny how you go completely to pieces when someone calls you, isn't it? The sad beaten bully in the school yard, chanting insults because he's nothing left.

Click to expand...

beaten bully? sounds a bit physical
you wouldnt be threatening me would you,
b/se that could be kinda funny, well for 15 seconds

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I guess someone given to making threats would see it that way, but they way I read it, "beaten" meant "defeated".

Rriley said:

wouldnt it be better if you made an explicit statement of how and why telecentric lenses in no way whatsoever are a counter to this problem ?

better that than this plausible denial, cop-out questioning you engage in

Click to expand...

How about what I said much further up?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37037298

In other words, telecentricity did the trick, but another trick (offset microlenses) did it better.

And for those that bother to click on links, "better" is defined.

Click to expand...

ive been around long enough to remember when you asked this forum what telecentric was b/se you didnt know,

Unlike some, Joe asks and he learns. In any case, I'm not so sure many people here know what 'telecentric' means. It means 'with the exit pupil distance at infinity', and no Olympus lens is.

--
Bob

Great Bustard · Nov 28, 2010

Rriley said:
ive been around long enough to remember when you asked this forum what telecentric was b/se you didnt know,

Imagine that -- I asked about something that I didn't know. It's not uncommon for me. I always ask about things I don't know. But what usually happens is that someone who does know, like one of the "sisters" such as Joseph Wisniewski, Bob, or Lee Jay, comes along and answers my question.

Rriley said:
do we really need to go here ?

It has no bearing on the subject. The subject, in case you lost the plot, is why telecentricity is "necessary", and the answer is "it isn't". More than that, the limitations on lens design imposed by telecentricity is what prompted Joseph Wisniewski to say:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37018569

I'm quite sure Oly has the technical know-how to make a 50mm f1.2 that can match a classic FF 105mm f2.5 in terms of sharpness and bokeh. But doing so would mean coming out of the closet: in effect, admitting that all their talk of "near telecentric lenses" and their rather whacked patent were just so much marketing fluff.

John King · Nov 28, 2010

Gidday Jason

tinternaut said:
And made that statement a proper haiku verse .

--
Regards
J

Yeah. My mate who does optics could have done this (he is a pretty multi-talented guy, and writes good Haiku ), and music, but I can barely remember any poetry - even the stuff that touches me - let alone make it up!

And wouldn't that amount to casting pearls before swine anyway? To quote that big book of 'poetry' ... lol.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

boggis the cat · Nov 28, 2010

Great Bustard said:
...is that it's highly dependent on the scene:

Obviously if you have no detail in the background then you don't have bokeh issues. I guess I found it a bit surprising that the bokeh was quite busy and distracting in that shot, given how "poor bokeh" is a criticism of some of the Olympus zooms.

Great Bustard said:
Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/160, ISO 100

The vignetting is easily seen in this shot, but it doesn't affect it really -- in fact it probably helps as your focus is forced into centre frame by the dark edges.

Corner sharpness is also not relevant for such a shot. Other types of shot would present the vignetting and corner blur as problems, of course.

Great Bustard said:
But, indeed, bokeh is rarely at it's best wide open. But the discussion was about vignetting, not bokeh, and I don't find the vignetting in pics anything that detracts from the pic. In fact, it's extremely rare that I find the vignetting in shallow DOF pics to be anything but a bonus.

If you typically only have the centre frame in focus then the edges are irrelevant. But bear in mind that other people may want the fast lens for the speed -- available light -- rather than the DOF, in which case the shortcomings become an issue.

Great Bustard said:
I mean, how silly is it that people fault shallow DOF for increased vignetting and softer corners, when they are all but a non-issue?

These ultra-fast lenses are not purely intended for ultra-shallow DOF.

Great Bustard said:
That said, would it not be better to begin with less vignetting and sharper corners and add softness as necessary in post? Absolutely (presuming the corners are withing the DOF, of course). But, is it a big issue? Absolutely not. Of course, I can only speak for myself.

As usual, it comes down to selecting the right tools for the job. Your usage doesn't require optically excellent lenses but an acceptable lens with very shallow DOF. I would find such lenses to be less useful as I tend to want a more "environmental" (or documentary) look, rather than a particular artistic look.

DxOMark on wide apertures.

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

illy

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

illy

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts